RCgothic

All three affected cores - Crew-1 (1061.1), GPS-III (1062.2), and Sentinel (1063.1) are new boosters with new Merlin's. It could be there's a slight susceptibility in the latest batch of engines that the static fire program has uncovered. This is why we test.

Several engines getting stripped out of F9s after recent static fire issue.

Surprise! Roscosmos didn't like getting mocked online:

It's a very complex subject, so explaining simply is hard. Basically, it's very hard to turn antimatter into useful work because it takes many metres of heavy material to absorb the energy released in the form of gamma radiation (which likes to go straight through things), and that's bad for rockets. Also the slightest percentage of energy transferred to the vehicle instead of the propellant requires vast radiators to dissipate, and those are heavy and so bad for rockets.

The data is good: The vibration is apparently nothing to worry about.

Static Fire! And then nothing exploded! Looks successful!

Yup, that definitely wasn't the full fury of even one Raptor. Preburners.

And if it launches on time it will shave I think 3 days off the fastest turnaround. Wikipedia says B1058 Demo-II to ANASIS-II was 1m 20d, but that month includes May 31st (51d). B1060 L11 to L14 would be 1m 18d but September was only 30d long, so 48d. At least until B1058 reclaims the title in November with CRS21!

Nope

Gorgeous:

I propose: A planet is a gravitationally rounded body. A major moon is a planet that orbits a barycentre inside a non-stellar primary. A binary planet is a pair of planets orbiting a barycentre that is in free space at least some of the time. An asteroid is not gravitationally rounded. An asteroid orbiting a planet or planetoid is a natural satellite. A planetoid is a transitional form that is somewhat rounded by gravity. A minor moon is a planetoid that orbits a planet. Therefore the moon is a major moon that is a planet. La

11th consecutive launch and landing of this particular booster. Seventh. I must have misheard the stream. Of course it's not coming in anywhere near as hot as a falcon 9.

Add me to the "we should have dozens of planets" caucus. Ceres was a planet before Pluto was. A planet should be defined by its shape and size, not by where it happens to be. By current definition a rogue gas giant could not be a planet because it's impossible to clear a hyperbolic orbit.

Yes, SN8's propellant is limited by only having 3 engines and the requirement to get off the pad. Add 3 fixed thrust-optimised raptors instead of vacuum raptors blanks and that's another 750t of propellant (1150 total) it can carry. ~8km/s DV with 0 payload and 120t dry mass. That's ballpark P2P2Anywhere, but I'd expect any suborbital version to either *not* have range to anywhere on the planet, or to have more than six engines. Starship can comfortably fit nine sea level raptors.

Assuming a TWR of 1.2 with 0 payload, 120t dry mass, 210t thrust per Raptor and an average ISP of 340: SN8 would have 395t of propellant and 4.9km/s of DV. F9 first stage with 15.8t payload and 116t second stage on top has about 3km/s DV. But I don't really think this is a test they'll actually perform!